Noble v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 112

ORDER After In Camera Review signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/18/2017. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

Case No. 1:14-cv-01963-DAD-EPG

BROOKE NOBLE,
Plaintiff,

ORDER AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW

vs.

14

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff initiated this action on December 10, 2014. (ECF No. 1) A First Amended
Complaint was filed on October 15, 2015. (ECF No. 25.) After a ruling on the Defendants’
motions to strike and/or dismiss on July 5, 2016, three claims remain against Defendant Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”). (ECF No. 86.) Specifically, this case is proceeding on
Plaintiff’s wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of
emotional distress claims against Wells Fargo. (Id.)
The Court held a hearing on the motions to compel on January 12, 2017. (ECF No.
110.) Plaintiff's counsel Lenore Albert and Defendant's counsel Kamran Javandel
telephonically appeared on behalf of their clients. (Id.) For the reasons stated on the record and
in a follow-up order issued January 7, 2016 (ECF Nos. 111-12), the motions to compel (ECF
Nos. 107, 019) were granted, in part, and denied, in part.
In Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and as further explained in a letter submitted with the

1

1

motion and at oral argument, Plaintiff challenged defendant's withholding of certain documents

2

and portions of documents on the ground of attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff asserted that

3

Wells Fargo redacted numerous documents but failed to produce a privilege log. Federal Rule

4

of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) requires a party claiming privilege to: (i) expressly make the claim;

5

and (ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced

6

or disclosed—and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or

7

protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Wells Fargo

8

conceded that it did not produce a privilege log despite its assertions of privilege in its

9

redactions.

10

The Court ordered Wells Fargo to produce a privilege log by January 27, 2017. (ECF

11

No. 112.) Plaintiff also raised a concern that Wells Fargo may be over-redacting the

12

documents it produced. Plaintiff specifically challenged an email chain from approximately the

13

time of the eviction in question. Plaintiff noted clear omissions including names of people in

14

communication. Plaintiff requested the basis of redactions in one particular email. Defense

15

counsel represented that the communication reflected attorney client privileged

16

communications between a business person and an attorney named Jan.

17

At the motion hearing, the Court directed Wells Fargo to submit a document at issue

18

(WF811-861) for in camera review.1 The Court has completed its in camera review and makes

19

the following findings.

20

A. Legal Standards

21

Because this case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s state law claims, the issue of privilege in

22

this litigation is a question of the state law of California. See Fed. R. Evid. 501 (providing that

23

“state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule

24

of decision.”); see also Kandel v. Brother Int'l Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1081 (C.D. Cal.

25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that it received two sets of redacted documents in camera: 1) “showing redacted text”,
and 2) “redacted.” It appeared that there was additional information redacted in the “redacted” file that was not
shown as redacted in the “showing redacted text” file. The Court is basing its rulings on the “showing redacted
text” file. The additional information contained in the “redacted” file should be disclosed to the extent it was not
previously disclosed.

2

1

2010) (“In a federal action such as this based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, state law

2

governs attorney-client privilege claims.”) (citations omitted).

3

Under the California attorney-client privilege, parties are entitled to withhold a

4

confidential communication “between a client and his or her attorney made in the course of an

5

attorney-client relationship.” Palmer v. Superior Court, 231 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 1224, 180 Cal.

6

Rptr. 3d 620, 627 (Cal. 2d Dist. 2014) (citations omitted). California law defines a

7

“confidential communication between client and lawyer” as:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

[I]nformation transmitted between a client and his or her lawyer in the course of
that relationship and in confidence by a means which, so far as the client is
aware, discloses the information to no third persons other than those who are
present to further the interest of the client in the consultation or those to whom
disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the
accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted, and includes a
legal opinion formed and the advice given by the lawyer in the course of that
relationship.
Cal. Evid. Code § 952. “The attorney-client privilege attaches to a confidential communication
between the attorney and the client and bars discovery of the communication irrespective of
whether it includes unprivileged material.” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.
4th 725, 734, 219 P.3d 736, 741 (Cal. 2009) (explaining that “[n]either the statutes articulating
the attorney-client privilege nor the cases which have interpreted it make any differentiation
between ‘factual’ and ‘legal’ information”).
“The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts
necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an attorney-client
relationship.” Costco, 47 Cal. 4th at 733, 219 P.3d at 741 (citations omitted). “Once that party
establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege, the communication is
presumed to have been made in confidence and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the
burden of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does
not for other reasons apply.” Id.
Evidentiary privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege, “should be narrowly
construed because they prevent the admission of relevant and otherwise admissible evidence.”

28
3

1

McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Superior Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1236, 9 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812,

2

817 (Cal. 1st Dist. 2004) (citations omitted). The attorney-client privilege does not apply

3

merely because an attorney communicates with his client. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v.

4

Superior Court, 153 Cal. App. 3d 467, 475, 200 Cal. Rptr. 471, 476 (Cal. 1st Dist. 1984).

5

“Knowledge which is not otherwise privileged does not become so merely by being

6

communicated to an attorney.” Costco, 47 Cal. 4th at 735, 219 P.3d at 742. The attorney-client

7

privilege does not attach to communications where “the client's dominant purpose in retaining

8

the attorney was something other than the request for a legal opinion or advice,” such as where

9

the attorney was acting as a negotiator for the client or merely providing business advice. See

10

Aetna, 153 Cal. App. 3d at 475, 200 Cal. Rptr. at 476.

11

The California work product doctrine codified in section 2018 “provides a privilege for

12

matter prepared in anticipation of litigation.” Dowden v. Superior Court, 73 Cal. App. 4th 126,

13

129, 86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 180, 182 (Cal. 4th Dist. 1999) (citation omitted). The work product

14

doctrine “absolutely protects from discovery writings that contain an ‘attorney's impressions,

15

conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories.’” Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp., 42 Cal.

16

4th 807, 814, 171 P.3d 1092, 1097 (Cal. 2007) (citations omitted). Work product protection

17

extends to documents prepared by non-attorneys at the attorney’s direction if the documents

18

contain the attorney’s thoughts and impressions. See id. Work product is not discoverable

19

“unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking

20

discovery in preparing that party's claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” Id. (quoting

21

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030).

22

B. Application to WF811-861

23

As an initial matter, the Court takes issue with the fact that defense counsel

24

misrepresented the status of one of the persons on the communication at issue. At oral

25

argument, defense counsel represented that "Jan" (i.e. Janet L. Branch) was a lawyer. Ms.

26

Branch is not a lawyer-she is a paralegal. This is a critical distinction for the purposes of

27
28
4

1

attorney client privilege.2 The attorneys involved in the communications are: Kenneth A.

2

Franklin, Johnathan Collins, Gene Wu, Mark T. Flewelling, and Michael B. Goldberg.3

3

With the above framework in mind, the Court makes the following rulings regarding

4

Wells Fargo’s redactions:

5

1. WF813

6

Redaction(s) sustained. Attorney work product.

7
8

2. WF814
Redaction(s) overruled. The redacted material is general in subject matter and does not

9

disclose the content of the advice. Although the elimination of the redaction would reveal the

10

topic of a question posed to legal counsel, the Court finds that it is merely a description of the

11

nature of the communication, similar to what would be provided in a privilege log. See Fed. R.

12

Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). Thus, the information is not protected.

13
14

3. WF826-827
Redaction(s) overruled. The communications are between non-attorneys and are not

15

passing along the advice of other attorneys, nor made in the provision of legal advice from an

16

attorney. The remainder is ministerial and does not describe any attorney-client

17

communication.

18
19

4. WF828
Redaction(s) sustained, in part, and overruled, in part. In the communication dated

20

September 25, 2013 3:35 p.m., the first paragraph describes a business meeting and business

21

decision resulting from that meeting. It does not describe any communications made for the

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

It is acknowledged that, although communications between a paralegal (or other legal staff) and the
client are technically not privileged, such a communication may be privileged when the purpose of the
communication is in furtherance the provision of a legal opinion or legal advice. See Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Superior
Court, 108 Cal. App. 3d 758, 765, 166 Cal. Rptr. 880, 884 (Cal. 2d Dist. 1980) (“While involvement of an
unnecessary third person in attorney-client communications destroys confidentiality, involvement of third persons
to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary to further the purpose of the legal consultation preserves
confidentiality of communication.”). Thus, a disclosure reasonably necessary to accomplish the corporate client's
purpose in consulting counsel is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege. Id. That said, there is
still a material difference under the law between communications with an attorney and a paralegal.
3
Counsel for Wells Fargo provided this information in camera at the request of the Court to aid its
analysis.

5

1

purpose of legal advice or the content of any legal advice. While this communication as a

2

whole arguably combines business and legal purposes, the Court finds that the first paragraph

3

should be disclosed consistent with the guide to narrowly construe the privilege. That said,

4

Defendant may redact the phrase in the first line of that paragraph, from the seventh word to the

5

sixteenth word.

6

The redactions are sustained as to the remainder of the redacted text.

7

5. WF829-836

8

Redaction(s) sustained.

9
10

6. WF849
Redaction(s) sustained.

11
12

7. WF858-59
Redaction(s) sustained.

13

8. WF860

14

Redaction(s) sustained.

15

C. Conclusion

16

Wells Fargo is ordered to modify its redactions consistent with this order and produce

17

the modified documents to Plaintiff within 14 days. In light of the guidance provided in this

18

order, counsel for Wells Fargo is advised to re-examine its previous redactions and make any

19

necessary modifications.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 18, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
6